I worked at Stirling University for 13 years. I was bullied by my manager, Kathy McCabe. I asked her to stop, but the ill treatment continued, and I raised grievances against her. As a result I was dismissed. Stirling University claims to be committed to allowing employees and students to be able to work and study free from bullying, victimisation and discrimination. However, here I provide evidence of the extreme lengths that management takes to protect and support bullies.

Tuesday

I received notification from Mark Toole that he was arranging a Disciplinary Hearing. For the first time, I was now able to see what the allegations were. I received copies of the statements from the complainants, and I received a copy of the Investigators' report.

The investigators' report is intended to establish the facts, and not to make any judgements. However, the report produced by Gail Miller and Graham Millar was precisely the opposite. Facts had been deliberately avoided and ignored. The report contained conclusions, and the "findings" were highly judgemental too. It was obvious that it wasn't intended to be an honest report. Ignoring facts was the tactic that the university had used for the grievance hearing as well as the appeal against the grievance decision, and they saw no reason to deviate from a winning formula.

Depite his previous involvement in my grievance and with his informal investigation, Mark had decided that he was going to chair the hearing himself. Far too risky to have an independent chair, obviously. He was also aware that I had made a Disclosure to the University Principal stating that I did not feel that he and HR were complying with the University Anti Bullying policy, by failing to take my grievance against Kathy's bullying seriously.

I could see that everything I'd said was ignored, and that I was the only person being honest. I could also see that the Investigators had deliberately avoided interviewing an obvious witness to an incident that was crucial to the investigation. It was an incident I'd already written and spoken to Mark about several times, but he was determined not to tell me the outcome of a discussion he had with Jackie O'Neil about this very incident. Now for the first time, I could see that Jackie had lied about that incident too. It was an incident where Jackie had screamed at me at the top of her voice while slamming her hand on her desk. She did this in an office occupied by up to 14 team colleagues. David Black was right next to me when it happened. I had already described it to Kathy in David's presence. The only possible reason that I can think of for both Mark and the investigators not to have interviewed David was because they knew very well that I had given the correct account of the incident. Jackie screamed at me because she thought I had made a mistake, when in fact it was she who had made the mistake. This was fairly common for Jackie. who despite frequently having to come to me for help with her own work because she lacked the skills to do it herself (even after 12 years in the job), she would frequently, with extraordinary arrogance believe that she knew my job better than I did, to the extent that she undid work that I'd done because she thought I'd done it incorrectly, even after I had explained to her two times that it was correct. Her manager, Kathy McCabe knew about this, but just chose not to do anything about it in those 12 years. Mark had offered to arrange a meeting with me and Jackie to discuss the problems. That could have been very helpful to me, but also to Jackie. She has been doing her job for 12 years, but it's never been brought to her attention just how frustrating she is to work with. However, Mark changed his mind, and cancelled the meeting. So, I've been dismissed, Jackie has once again gone unpunished for screaming at me, and she still probably thinks she is doing a great job, and is a joy to work with.

Screaming at me was pretty bad, and is included in the university's examples of bullying. Much worse though, is that once again Jackie had gone to Kathy and given a very false account of the incident by claiming that MY mistake had caused her to have to work until 10pm that day. The truth is that HER mistake would have delayed her for about an hour. This was due to David and me quickly fixing HER mistake. HER mistake had caused me and David extra work. In her statement, Jackie still refers to MY mistake which she says is evidence of my stress. Erm, no Jackie. It was YOUR mistake which was due to your inability to focus on your work instead of looking for faults in other people. Mark wasn't interested in these mere facts. He says he sees no reason to disbelieve Jackie. He should explain why. If he can't give a reasonable explanation, he should resign or be sacked. He has irrefutable proof that she lied.

I was not allowed to talk to any of my colleagues, so my girlfriend, Ruth spoke with David about that incident. David confirmed that Jackie had shouted at me angrily. Ruth wrote a letter confirming this. I submitted that letter as evidence.

When I received the report from Mark and could see that the imvestigation had been carried out so dishonestly, my health deteriorated once again. Everything was stacked against me, except the facts, but Mark didn't care about the facts. I could see that he was determined to dismiss me, and that the same tactic of ignoring evidence would be used. If he had intended for the procedure to be honest, he would surely have asked the investigators to go back to the complainants to check out the conflicting evidence. He would also have insisted that they interview David.

I knew that there was lots of evidence available to refute the allegations, but I needed access to my office PC to obtain it. Mark placed strict time limits on my access to my PC, and because my health wasn't great, that was very inconvenient. Still, I managed to find lots, but could probably have found more if I'd had more time. The written evidence makes it absolutely clear that all of the complainants had lied.

For example, Una Forsyth had stated that she had avoided me for four years because I give her "the creeps". She also stated that she prefers to deal with my colleague, David, because he is more helpful than me, as I delay responding to her. She claimed that I had told Karen Eccleson that I had a soft spot for Una and hoped to get together with her five years ago while she was married, and that that was inappropriate. While giving that statement, she was reported to be "visibly upset". She claimed that I had made a certain female colleague's (LM's) life a misery and that I see women as being vulnerable. The picture she was intending to portray was that I was a woman hating monster, and this was to fit with the statements that the other complainants had given. It was obvious that the complainants had colluded.

I had stated at my interview that Una had recently cooked a meal for me. If that were true then it would render Una's evidence completely unreliable. The investigators and Mark didn't ask Una about this meal she had cooked for me, and I expect Mark was just going to say that he didn't believe me. However, I was able to submit emails that Una and I had sent each other about that meal she had cooked for me. It is clear from these emails that we were on very friendly terms, and that Una was eager to impress me with her culinary skills. She hadn't cooked a meal for David (or anyone else) with whom she claimed to get on better. It also throws doubt on the claim that I had said that I wanted to "get together" with her five years ago while she was married. Why would she be cooking for someone she believes has unwanted desires for her? Why would she wait five years to be "visibly upset" by this? Even more obvious though, I explained that Una's marriage broke up EIGHT years ago, and that shortly afterwards she had a four year relationship with another man. I even told them that she had relocated after her marriage broke up to be closer to her boyfriend and that this would be in HR's records. I was even able to give evidence that suggested that it was Una who had a soft spot for me, which was backed up by evidence submitted by my girlfriend who had suspected this too, and who had been living with me for more than 6 years.

I also submitted evidence that showed clearly that she would come to me, rather than David for assistance. Furthermore I showed evidence that she frequently came to me with matters that she knew wasn't my responsibility, and that she did this because I am very obliging. It's also possible that she came to me simply because she enjoyed being with me. I certainly felt she spent more time with me than was necessary when she was dealing with the lottery syndicate money. I also submitted an email she sent me telling me about a man who had his penis stuck in a metal pipe; hardly the sort of thing you do with someone who gives you the creeps. I also referred to an email she sent me (and just me) with two animated files that showed cartoon characters having oral sex. I also referred to a time when she had come to me first thing in the morning dressed provocatively, and that it had made me feel sexually intimidated, and that I felt she had done it deliberately. I also referred to occasions while she and I were both married, when she would tell me that she wished her husband was more like me. Also when we played squash, she would wear a very skimpy outfit, and when her marriage broke up, she told me that her husband thought she was having an affair with me.

I also showed Mark an email I'd sent to Una shortly after she had told me that she didn't like being line managed by Eileen MacDonald. She felt that Eileen was overly critical of her spending time collecting lottery money. She felt it was pointless being managed by Eileen as she learned nothing from her. She added that she learned far more from me. I had said in my statement that Una was very enthusiastic and keen to learn. Una replied to that email and highlighted that I have helped her a lot with her work.

Unknown to me, Una had been interviewed as part of my grievance against Kathy. She was asked about the occasion when she physically assaulted me 3 years earlier. She said that when she returned to our office following her interview, I looked at her gloating and smug because she'd been spoken to about the assault. Karen Stark confirmed that this was impossible because I was not told who was being interviewed or when. I had also written to Karen to protest that such interviews should not take place at all because they were irrelevant to my grievance, and would only cause bad feelings within the team. So even if I'd known she'd been interviewed, I wouldn't have been gloating about it. I hadn't expected Una would have been interviewed because when I referred to the assault in my grievance, I hadn't used her name.

Selina Gibb had given similar evidence about me. It was obvious that she had colluded with the others. She also made the claim that she preferred dealing with David rather than me. Yet again, I showed evidence that it was me she repeatedly came to. I even said that in the 6 years since David joined the University, I had never seen either Una or Selina go to David rather than me, despite the fact that they had to pass him in order to come to me. Selina had claimed that, following a conversation with me, she was anxious and nervous around me. I had told Mark that both Una and Selina were laughing and joking with me on the day of my grievance hearing. I also submitted a personal email that Selina had sent me in which she states that she is going to tell me "lots of funnies" about her skiing lessons in the tea room. That's not the action of someone who is anxious and nervous with me. She wasn't anxious or nervous because she had wholly misrepresented a private conversation I had with her, saying that I had frightened and alarmed her.Selina had also claimed that I had asked her where she got her University degree, knowing that she didn't have a degree. She said that I did this to make myself feel superior. I denied saying that, and I told Mark that I had always been very supportive of Selina's education. She had taken a computing course some years ago, and she had asked me for some help with it. I also said that recently she had told me she was bored with her job, and that she wanted to do some technical work that Una does. I was able to prove that I had set Selina up with a training course and created space on a database for her to carry out the exercises, and I submitted an email she sent me saying that she was really enjoying the course. Neither Eileen nor Kathy had ever considered this for her.To put some sense of perspective on this; just a few weeks before I was suspended, Selina came to me for the second time, to tell me about an issue that was upsetting her. About 5 times a year, there was a requirement for someone to phone HR to obtain a small piece of information. It would have taken no more than two minutes to do this. However, Selina was upset because she felt that EB should be the person to phone for it, and she felt that EB was being a bit bossy with her by telling her that she has to phone for it. To solve the problem, I spent roughly half a day, including my lunch hour and some time after hours, writing a program that would automatically provide Selina with that piece of information. So it could be said that I spent roughly four hours in order to save Selina about ten minutes work each year. That's not why I did it though. I did it to stop her feeling upset. I wouldn't have upset Selina for the world. She was one of my closest friends in the team. This is the email I sent her the first time the information was sent to her automatically.I also showed Mark an email that Jackie claimed in her statement that I didn't send her. I also referred to a document that he should look at to see that her story was untrue. He chose not to look at that document.The complainants had also colluded to claim that I delay responding to their work requests. My most recent appraisal form signed by my manager confirms that I respond quickly to requests for work in order to prevent my colleagues being held up. I showed Mark that appraisal which is extremely positive and contains nothing that supports the allegations. It was abundantly clear that the complainants had lied and that they had colluded to arrive at their lies. Not only that, with the evidence I was giving it was clear that I was someone who went out of my way to help my colleagues, especially the ones who were complaining. At this point, if Mark had been genuine, he would have apologised and said that these were malicious complaints. Instead, Mark has said that he believes them. That's not a mistake in my view; it's a lie. If he genuinely believed the complaints, then he would surely try to explain the enormous inconsistencies between their statements and the facts. However, in his report in which he dismisses me, he once again does not refer to the facts. It's as though they don't exist.

He should explain how it is that Una came to cook me my favourite meal in order to impress me when she says she avoided contact with me. He should explain how I was able to add her as a friend on Facebook without her asking me to. He should explain the sexually explicit emails she sent me, when she claims I give her the creeps. He should explain how Selina is anxious and nervous around me, yet keen to tell me "lots of funnies" face to face. He should explain how Jackie claims not to have received an email from me, when I was able to show him it, and show that she had acted on it. He should explain the great many more examples where the complainants' statements are inconsistent with the facts. He can't explain any of that, and he hasn't even asked those individuals to explain it, because he knows that they can't either. He knows that they were lying, and he knew that long before he saw any evidence from me.

I raised a grievance against Eileen MacDonald more than two years ago. Kathy refused to deal with it, and passed it to Peter Kemp. Peter said he would deal with it, but didn't. It was then passed to Mark when he joined the university. He asked me if I still wanted to pursue it, and I said yes. More than a year later, in the presence of my union rep, I asked him when it was going to be processed. He falsely claimed that I had withdrawn it. I confirmed that I hadn't, and that I still wanted it to be processed. He never processed it, and still falsely claims that I withdrew it.

About a week before these complaints were made, I made a complaint against Jackie. Mark said he'd deal with it, then changed his mind. I had already made a complaint to Kathy about Jackie, but she never processed it, and said that she wasn't interested because she felt that her employees should sort such things out between themselves.

Although I hadn't made a complaint against Una, she had physically assaulted me at a work's night out in December 2006. Kathy, in the presence of Mark, admitted that she had known about it, but hadn't acted on it because it didn't happen in her presence. As part of my grievance, Una was asked about it (against my wishes), and took the huff. This undoubtedly led to Una colluding with Eileen and Jackie to make up these bogus complaints about me.

The biggest shock was discovering that Selina had taken part in the collusion. She was one of the last people I would ever have suspected would involve herself in a conspiracy to deprive me of my livelihood. You really cannot trust anyone.

Before the Disciplinary Hearing, I wrote to Mark offering to undertake a polygraph test along with the complainants. I even offered to pay for the testing. Needless to say, my offer wasn't taken up.

In total, five employees have made malicious complaints against me - all very obviously false. It is a very serious disciplinary matter to make malicious complaints, yet Stirling University has rewarded those individuals with my dismissal. Can you imagine how that makes me feel?

At the beginning of the hearing, Mark announced that the hearing would finish by 4pm, and that it would not be continued another day. This basically confirmed that he had already reached his decision and wasn't interested in hearing the evidence. I attempted to explain the background to events and referred to documents to support what I was saying, but we were running out of time. So I had to ask Mark to refer me to any allegations that he considered serious enough to dismiss me for, so that I could respond to it. He wasn't able to answer that, and said that we had to look at the picture as a whole. So I responded to every single allegation. No evidence was submitted that supported any of the allegations apart from two emails I'd sent Una Forsyth. Una collected the lottery syndicate money for me to buy the tickets. She emailed the syndicate to say that she didn't want to do it anymore. I replied and jokingly asked "Was it something I said?" Over the next couple of days I began to wonder if she was blanking me. This was something she had done a few years previously, and I didn't know why she had done it. Then I noticed that she had deleted me as a friend from Facebook. This confirmed my suspicion that she was blanking me again. I still didn't know why she was blanking me, but the previous time she had done it led to her physically assaulting me. So I emailed her to suggest that if there was a problem that she either speak with me or Mark Toole about it, so that we could have it sorted out. I was pretty sure I hadn't done anything to have caused it. Later I discovered the reason she wasn't speaking to me was that she had been interviewed about the assault as part of the grievance investigation.

I also submitted an email she sent me on another occasion when she had snapped at me and snatched a piece of paper from my hands. I couldn't understand why she had done it because I had just been helping her with a piece of work. She explained that it was something unrelated to me.

Friday

While I was awaiting the decision on my grievance against Kathy McCabe, a number of colleagues colluded and went to HR with malicious complaints about me. This was because I had made genuine complaints against two of them which were still to be actioned, and so it was in their interest to get rid of me. The complaints they came up with were unbelievable, but that didn't seem to matter to Mark Toole. He carried out an informal investigation with these complainants, and then arranged a formal investigation. I was suspended during the investigation which Mark said would be "fair and thorough". With me suspended, it gave the complainants more time to get their story straight, but they didn't realise that there was already evidence that refuted the story that they had invented.

The Disciplinary Procedure states that investigators should be drawn from a different department. That would have meant MT would have lost some control, so he decided to ignore that instruction, and appointed Gail Miller and Graham Millar, whom he manages, to investigate. Another reason Graham should not have been chosen was because of a close relationship he enjoys with one of the complainants. For several years, Graham's team didn't invite him to their nights out, because they objected to the way he had treated a former colleague. So he came to my team's nights out instead. He was regularly seen with his arm around Una Forsyth's shoulders and waist. My girlfriend had noticed this too. I was surprised to learn recently that he is married, because I always assumed he must be single from the way he behaved with Una. He doesn't seem to mind making public displays of affection for her. During her interview with Graham, Una was reported to have been "visibly upset" while she explained that I allegedly had a soft spot for her and had hoped to get together with her while she was still married five years ago. Graham would have been aware that Una's marriage had broken up eight years ago, and that shortly afterwards she was in a relationship for roughly four years with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh. Graham also worked closely with Eileen MacDonald when they were interviewing job applicants just before the investigation began.

Gail and Graham interviewed each of the complainants, and then they interviewed me. At the time I was interviewed, I didn't know what the complaints were or even who was complaining about me. I was just told that the investigation was into me bullying colleagues, including bullying based on gender, and inappropriate behaviour. Graham asked me to talk about my relationships with my colleagues, and wouldn't say what the complaints were about. By denying me any details of the complaints, Graham would have hoped that I wouldn't be able to refute them.

Unknown to me, much of what I said conflicted with what the complainants had said in their statements. However that didn't seem to surprise Graham who was, of course, aware of the inconsistencies. For example, Una had falsely claimed that for four years she had avoided contact with me. She and the other complainants (all women) had come up with the story that I am a man who has a problem with women, that I delay responding to work requests from women, and that I only got on well with 2 out of the 11 women in the team. However, I got on well with all but two team members, Kathy and Eileen Mac. Without me knowing about Una's false claims, I mentioned that she had recently invited me to be her friend on Facebook, that she regularly collected the lottery syndicate money on my behalf, that she had recently cooked me a meal, and confided in me that she didn't want to be line managed by Eileen anymore, and that she frequently came to me for help, even on matters that were not covered by my role, because I'm very obliging and helpful. Despite the obvious difference in evidence, Graham chose not to interview Una again to ask her to explain the difference, nor did he tell me what Una had said.Selina Gibb had made up a similar account of her relationship with me, and Graham didn't tell me about that either. I saw no reason to mention Selina because we had been good friends for about 10 years. It is worth noting that it is a very serious disciplinary matter to make malicious complaints.

Mark told me he selected Graham because he was an experienced investigator, but his performance suggests otherwise. For example, when he interviewed Una, she gave inconsistent statements, but he didn't ask her to explain. She had told him that I'd added her as a friend on Facebook, but he's an IT expert and knows that you can't do that without first being invited. He didn't ask about this. She said that she collected the lottery money for me, but he didn't ask why she did this if she avoided contact with me.

In addition, Una made statements that were simply screaming out for further questioning. She said that I made one woman's (LM's) life a misery, but nothing else was said or asked about this allegation. Surely a genuine Investigator would have asked for details of how I'd done this, and asked if my manager was informed of it, etc. I see no genuine value in an investigation, if someone can make such a serious allegation, and not explain it. Again, I was not asked about that woman during my interview with the investigators.

Following the investigation, Gail and Graham produced a report. The Disciplinary Procedure states that it is not the role of the Investigator to come to conclusions, but Graham included conclusions in his report which, despite the fact that I had given evidence that refuted the claims of the complainants, were based entirely on their statements. This included his conclusion relating to a private conversation I was alleged to have had with Selina. I don't think it is possible to come to a conclusion about a private conversation until you hear it from both parties. For all the investigators knew, the conversation might not have taken place at all. There was indeed a conversation, however Selina had given a false account of it, saying that I had frightened and alarmed her by losing control, becoming so wild that my face was red and I was spitting on her desk, and that she wasn't interested in what I was saying to her. She alleged that following that conversation, she was anxious and nervous around me. The investigators didn't ask why she had waited two months before reporting this alleged incident that had made her so anxious to be around me. If the investigators had asked me about it, I would have been able to refer to occasions following that very innocent conversation when Selina was laughing and joking with me. In fact the last time I was with Selina, we were both laughing and joking, and there's evidence to support that fact.

I believe that the reason Graham didn't put any of these allegations to me was that he and Mark already knew that they were all false, and they didn't want any facts to get in the way and prevent them from coming to the required conclusions. This didn't quite go to plan though, because when I was interviewed, I unwittingly referred to facts that refuted the allegations. This didn't prove a major problem for the investigators though, because they could simply ignore the facts. After all, they weren't on a fact finding mission, they were on a mission to help Mark get rid of me. After I was interviewed, Gail wrote to me to say that they were considering removing parts of my statement. That seemed odd to me at the time, and I can only think that it was because I had managed to refute the false complaints, and rather than having to ignore parts of my statement, they would have preferred that my statement didn't include them in the first place.

Jackie O'Neil had been interviewed and she talked about an incident that I also discussed at my interview. Her account was very different to mine, but we both stated that colleague David Black was a very close witness. Any "fair and thorough" investigation would have had to include asking David for his account. Once again, Graham carefully avoided that because Mark knew that my account was true. I had referred to a document that was available that would have refuted Jackie's account, but Graham didn't investigate that either. The Disciplinary Procedure also states that evidence that doesn't fit the Investigators' understanding should not be ignored. Clearly Graham's report does just that.

The Investigator's report is supposed to detail the facts established by the investigation, and no recommendations or judgments should be made. However, the facts are conspicuous by their absence. Having read the report, it is difficult to think of a genuine reason for having interviewed me at all, other than to allow them to say they've done it. It doesn't refer to anything I've said. So the Investigators have made a judgement to ignore my evidence, preferring to base their findings and conclusions on the statements from the complainants which were already known to be unreliable.Section 19. The investigators did not question me about this. Roughly seven team members were in the tea room. Selina was standing opposite me, leaning over a chair. From where I was sitting it looked as though she had a pregnancy bump. This triggered some vague memory that I'd heard that she was pregnant, and I asked "Are you pregnant again?" Selina laughed as she said "No! That's not something you should ask a woman, Allan." I said "Sorry!", then added, "but didn't you tell me you were pregnant?" She looked puzzled as she said "No". She then stood up straight, and I could see that it was just that she was wearing a baggy top, and I pointed that out. I made no mention of her "weight" whatsoever. She hadn't just returned from maternity leave. She had returned almost a year previously. She did not leave the room until we all left the room. She had sent me the email below as a joke two months earlier, but I hadn't seen the punchline at the bottom of the email. There was absolutely no intention to insult or embarrass Selina. Selina and Jackie have colluded to make this into something sinister. It was never mentioned again, and was not reported until this investigation took place. Selina and I remained on very good terms right up to my suspension, as can be seen in emails she sent me. She also made a very innocent private conversation we had sound very sinister. Did she do this of her own free will, or was she pressurised? Well, she hasn't told me of any pressure, so I can only assume she chose to do it herself.Section 18. I was not questioned about any of this. The allegation that I hoped to get together with Una while she was married five years ago is not only false, it is impossible. Her marriage broke up eight years ago. Graham Millar would have known this as he has a very close relationship with Una.

I have never made any comment to Jackie about her shape. However, the bullying has had a serious effect on my health and my weight for two reasons; my alcohol intake has increased massively, and I can no longer take part in sports which I used to do daily, and I no longer go dancing. On two occasions at the beginning of 2010, Jackie came over to the area of my desk and, in her loud voice, mentioned that I was getting fat, and that I should get back into training. Although I wasn't offended, Jackie wouldn't have cared if I was. Her main motivation I believe was to bring to the attention of everyone else around us that she was in training.

Section 21. I was not questioned about any of this. I did, however raise the topic of Eileen's and Jackie's poor technical performance. I did not say that this is because I deem them to be technically inferior to me. That sounds very much like a dishonest and somewhat immature criticism of me; and certainly not a fact that the investigators are supposed to establish. Part of my job is to provide technical training and advice to Programmers. When interviewed, I gave my view (as I have given to my manager before) that Eileen's and Jackie's technical performance falls well below what I would expect from a Programmer and a Senior Programmer with the years of experience that they've had in the job, and with the training and help I and others have given them. The problem is not that they don't match me technically, but that they don't match Programmers with just months of experience. They do not respond to training and advice given, and I showed ample evidence of this. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that they have never had any real desire to improve their technical skills, and worse, both have caused problems because they have arrogantly acted upon their mistaken belief that they are technically superior to me. Added to that, Jackie has screamed at me several times because she thinks I'm technically inferior to her. That is a symptom of poor management. Just days before I was suspended, Eileen wrote to me with a question that most Trainee Programmers would know the answer to by the end of their first day at work. Eileen is a Senior Programmer with ten years experience. While that may sound like a massive exaggeration, I assure you it is not. As usual, I answered as if it was a perfectly normal question. Eileen's and Jackie's roles both pay in excess of £40,000 a year full time.

I offered Graham Millar and Gail Miller an opportunity to respond to this statement on 30th August 2010. I also asked if there was anything I've said that they disagree with. I have not received a reply.